BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |         SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER         |
          |                   Senator Fran Pavley, Chair                    |
          |                    2013-2014 Regular Session                    |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          BILL NO: AB 1273                   HEARING DATE: June 25, 2013  
          AUTHOR: Ting                       URGENCY: No  
          VERSION: June 19, 2013             CONSULTANT: Bill Craven  
          DUAL REFERRAL: Governance and FinanceFISCAL: Yes  
          SUBJECT: Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San  
          Francisco: Pier 30-32: multipurpose venue.
          
          SUMMARY
          This bill seeks a determination from the Legislature that a  
          proposed multi-purpose venue at Piers 30-32 in San Francisco Bay  
          furthers the purposes of the common law public trust for  
          commerce, navigation, and fisheries. The building on Piers 30-32  
          would include an arena for the Golden State Warriors, an NBA  
          basketball franchise, which could also serve as a convention  
          facility. There would be limited retail and parking associated  
          with this venue. 

          The California Legislature is the ultimate trustee of Public  
          Trust lands. 

          Other development across the street from the two piers, on a  
          separate 3 acre parcel, would be a part of the overall project  
          although that lot is not a part of the public trust  
          determination. That lot is called Seawall Lot 330. 

          In 2012, San Francisco entered into an agreement with the Golden  
          State Warriors to build a new, state-of-the-art, LEED Gold  
          multi-purpose facility capable of being used for Warriors' home  
          games, other events including conventions, and expanding public  
          access to the waterfront, among other things. 

          The permitting for this project involves approvals by many  
          organizations, chiefly the Bay Conservation and Development  
          Commission (BCDC), the Board of Supervisors of the City and  
          County of San Francisco, and the State Lands Commission (SLC).  
          Additionally, the project is subject to a full review under the  
          California Environmental Quality Act which is now in the early  
                                                                      1







          stages of preparing a draft environmental impact report. None of  
          the approvals or reviews have been completed. 

          The proponents of the project are asking the Legislature,  
          because of previous legislation on these two piers, for an early  
          indication that the proposed project is consistent with the  
          Public Trust doctrine. That is the overriding purpose of the  
          bill. 

          There is general agreement (from all sides) that determining  
          whether the proposed project is or is not consistent with the  
          Public Trust doctrine is an intensely complicated legal and  
          policy question. 

          Many other non-public trust considerations have been articulated  
          in support of and in opposition to the project. It is important  
          to note that the central issue before the Committee is the  
          public trust question. 

          The most recent development was a recent vote (6/19/13) by BCDC  
          to oppose the bill unless it is made a two-year bill. 

          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          1. In 1968, the Legislature in the Burton Act granted the  
          tidelands and submerged lands along the San Francisco waterfront  
          to the City and County of San Francisco to be controlled and  
          managed by the San Francisco Port Commission (Port). 

          2. The SLC administers Public Trust lands not granted to the  
          local agencies and oversees the activities of local grantees  
          such as the Port. 

          3.  The Public Trust Doctrine began as an ancient common law  
          doctrine and exists today as a robust and vital common law  
          doctrine that protects the public's right to use California's  
          waterways and waterfronts for commerce, navigation, fishing,  
          boating, natural habitat protection, and other water oriented  
          activities. In general, the public trust doctrine provides that  
          filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands and the beds of  
          lakes, streams, and other navigable waterways (i.e. public trust  
          lands) are to be held in trust by the state for the benefit of  
          the people of California. 


          4. The California Constitution prohibits the sale of tidelands  
          to private interests of tidelands fronting on a waterway used  
          for navigation and within 2 miles of an incorporated city. 
                                                                      2









          5. This prohibition may be lifted by the Legislature if it finds  
          that specific tidelands are no longer needed for navigation or  
          if the lands are part of a highly beneficial program of harbor  
          development and constitute a relatively small portion of the  
          lands granted to the local agency. 


          6. Legislative trust grants to local grantees (such as, in this  
          case, the Burton Act's grant of tidelands to the City and County  
          of San Francisco) place limits on the permissible uses of the  
          trust property. 


          7. While some projects clearly are consistent with the public  
          trust and some projects clearly are not consistent with the  
          public trust, more complicated Public Trust consistency  
          determinations are handled on a case-by-case basis and are  
          intensely fact-specific. Guidance can be found from previous  
          court decisions, opinions of the California Attorney General,  
          and resolutions and advice letters from the SLC. 


          8. The SLC is the steward and manager of the state's public  
          trust lands. The SLC has direct administrative control over the  
          state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public  
          trust lands granted by the Legislature to more than 80 local  
          public agencies.


          9. A definition of the Public Trust attributed to the SLC is  
          useful in framing how a public trust determination in this  
          instance may be evaluated:  


          "Uses of trust lands, whether granted to a local agency or  
          administered by the State directed, are generally limited to  
          those that are water dependent or related, and include commerce,  
          fisheries and navigation, environmental preservation and  
          recreation. Public trust uses include, among others, ports,  
          marinas, docks and wharves, buoys, hunting, commercial and sport  
          fishing, bathing, swimming, and boating. Public trust lands may  
          also be kept in their natural state for habitat, wildlife  
          refuges, scientific study, or open space. Ancillary or  
          incidental uses, that is, uses that directly promote trust uses,  
          are directly supportive and necessary for trust uses, or that  
                                                                      3







          accomodate the public's enjoyment of trust lands, are also  
          permitted. " 


          10. Fact-specific determinations of the Public Trust doctrine  
          have determined that local-serving uses (such as grocery stores)  
          that do not require a waterfront location and private uses (such  
          as housing) are not consistent with the Public Trust doctrine.  
          On the other hand, visitor-serving facilities, including visitor  
          serving retail, restaurants and hotels, are considered  
          appropriate ancillary or incidental uses that directly promote  
          Public Trust uses of the waterfront and facilitate the public's  
          access to and enjoyment of the waterfront.


          11. Chapter 489 of the Statutes of 2001 (AB 1389, Shelley) and  
          Chapter 68 of the Statutes of 2003 (AB 605, Yee), authorizes the  
          Port to approve a cruise ship terminal development on the San  
          Francisco waterfront at Pier 30-32, which would include general  
          office and retail use. That project would have had much more  
          commercial and retail square footage than the proposed project  
          at Piers 30-32. 


          12.  Chapter 477 of the Statutes of 2011(AB 418, Ammiano), frees  
          the public trust restrictions from Seawall Lot 330 (which is  
          across the Embarcadero from Pier 30-32) and authorizes the  
          transfer of the property to a private party subject to specified  
          conditions. 


          13. AB 664 (Ammiano) was the bill that authorized the America's  
          Cup yacht racing event to be held at these two piers, although  
          that race re-located to a different location on the Bay. It  
          contained declarations to the effect that the comprehensive  
          re-financing of the district near the piers and the race  
          furthered the objective of the Public Trust. 


          14.  The McAteer-Petris Act establishes the land use regulatory  
          jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and  
          Development Commission (BCDC) to include, among other things,  
          the San Francisco Bay and a shoreline band consisting of all  
          territory located between the shoreline of San Francisco Bay and  
          a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line. 

          PROPOSED LAW
                                                                      4







          Because of the prior legislative involvement with these two  
          particular piers in the San Francisco Bay, the proponents are  
          seeking a legislative determination early in the process that  
          the proposed use of the piers is consistent with the Public  
          Trust. 

          Assuming the proposed project is consistent with the Public  
          Trust, the sponsors want to proceed with the development  
          proposal that AB 1273 would authorize and that was briefly  
          described earlier. The proposal can be summarized as follows: 

          1. Authorizes the SLC to approve a development on the San  
          Francisco waterfront at Pier 30-32, that includes a multipurpose  
          venue if it finds that all of the following conditions are met: 

          a) The development is designed to attract people to the  
          waterfront, increase public enjoyment of the San Francisco Bay,  
          encourage public trust activities, and enhance public use of  
          trust assets and resources on the waterfront; 

          b) The development is designed to provide multiple significant  
          views of the Bay Bridge and the San Francisco Bay from a variety  
          of elevations and vantage points, including significant views of  
          the Bay Bridge and the San Francisco Bay from the interior  
          concourses of the multipurpose venue and views of the Bay Bridge  
          from certain seating areas within the multipurpose venue; 

          c) The multipurpose venue facility is located to minimize  
          interference with public views of San Francisco Bay to the  
          extent feasible; 

          d) The multipurpose venue facility provides free public access  
          to patrons and nonpatrons alike to exterior portions of the  
          building from which the public can view the San Francisco Bay,  
          subject to reasonable limitations based on security. In  
          addition, to encourage the public to come to the bay's edge, the  
          design of the multipurpose venue shall provide significant free  
          public views of the inside of the multipurpose venue from the  
          outside, and the operator of the multipurpose venue shall be  
          required to allow the public to view the inside of the  
          multipurpose venue from the outside during events whenever  
          feasible; 

          e) The development is designed to achieve and enhance maximum  
          feasible public access to and minimum fill in the bay in a  
          manner that is consistent, as determined by Bay Conservation and  
          Development Commission (BCDC) in its separate permit process,  
                                                                      5







          with the Special Area Plan, the McAteer-Petris Act, and the Bay  
          Plan; 

          f) The development includes significant public plazas open to  
          the public on a substantially permanent basis that can be  
          accessed via public pedestrian promenades at the site that  
          encourage public use of the site and provide a variety of views  
          of the San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco cityscape; 

          g) The development includes continuous public access around the  
          perimeter of Pier 30-32 open to the public year round, with  
          limited exceptions for temporary safety-, security- and  
          maritime-based interruptions, and includes an interpretive  
          program to enhance the public's enjoyment of the site; 

          h) The development includes a significant and appropriate  
          maritime program which includes: 

               (1) A city fire station and berthing facilities for city  
          fire boats, or in lieu thereof, one or more other maritime uses  
          on the north side of Pier 30-32; 

               (2) Facilities for berthing at the east end of Pier 30-32,  
          including facilities that can accommodate periodic use by cruise  
          or other deep draft vessels, or other facilities that promote  
          the deep water berth at Pier 30-32 

               (3) Facilities that enable direct public access to the  
          water by human-powered vessels or swimmers, if feasible, on the  
          south side of Pier 30-32, or water-oriented recreational uses  
          facing the Brannan Street Wharf open water basin; and, 

               (4) Water-transit docking or berthing facilities for water  
          taxis, ferries, or both. 

          i) Any nonmaritime office space on Pier 30-32 is limited to  
          70,000 square feet; 


          j) All retail venues on Pier 30-32 are limited to  
          venue-supporting or trust-retail uses; 

          k) Any parking included on Pier 30-32 is for public parking, not  
          residential or commuter uses. 


          l) Public trust-consistent events, uses, and programming are  
                                                                      6







          offered regularly at the site of the development. The site shall  
          be made available to the Port or its designee for those events  
          on at least 15 days per year, including at least three days on  
          which the multipurpose venue shall be made available to the Port  
          or its designee for those events. These events shall include  
          free and low-cost visitor-serving events; 

          m) A public community room is available at the site for free or  
          low-cost use by members of the public statewide, without  
          preference to local residents or organizations; 

          n) The development of the site is required to be consistent with  
          a plan to address anticipated sea-level rise through year 2050;   


          o) The development approved for Seawall Lot 330 (which is across  
          the Embarcadero from Pier 30-32) includes a hotel or other  
          visitor-serving uses that the SLC finds will materially enhance  
          public trust uses on Pier 30-32 and the San Francisco  
          waterfront; 

          p) The City of San Francisco has completed the CEQA process for  
          the project;

          q) A major permit application has been submitted to BCDC; and

          r) Consultation between the SLC and BCDC has occurred to  
          determine consistency with these conditions. 

          2. The bill further provides for what is essentially a  
          monitoring program which is called a "trust program report" by  
          which the Port would assure the SLC at 5 year intervals that the  
          conditions for public uses at the site are maintained as  
          described above. Those five year reports are to include: 

          (1) A list and description of the trust-related events and  
          programming that have occurred at the site of the mixed-use  
          development and in the multipurpose venue over the preceding  
          five-year period, including the dates on which the events  
          occurred or the multipurpose venue was made available for those  
          events, and identifying any free and low-cost visitor-serving  
          events; 

          (2) A description of the efforts made by the Port, its tenants,  
          and subtenants to publicize the availability of Pier 30-32,  
          including the multipurpose venue, for trust-related events and  
          other efforts undertaken to solicit such events; 
                                                                      7








          (3) A description of the maritime program on those portions of  
          Pier 30-32 within the purview of the Port or the City, including  
          a list of the facilities constructed, identification of any  
          tenants, licensees, or other operators of the maritime  
          facilities, and a description of the nature and frequency of the  
          maritime use; 

          (4) A description of the tenants and use of the non-maritime  
          office space and the use of the public community room on Pier  
          30-32; and, 

          (5) Any other information specifically requested by the State  
          Lands Commission that pertains to the City or Port program of  
          trust uses for Pier 30-32 and that is reasonable obtainable by  
          the City or Port. 

          3. The bill provides that the Executive Officer of the SLC may  
          require an implementation plan in case he or she determines that  
          the trust program is not being fully implemented.  The  
          implementation plan may extend to all the terms and conditions  
          set forth in the governmental approvals of the project, the  
          leases and other contracts affecting use of the site. Those  
          enforcement provisions are triggered by the following two  
          findings that would have to be made by the Executive Officer: 

          (1) That Pier 30-32 is not being used for at least 15   
          trust-related events annually at the site as a whole or is not  
          being used for at least three trust-related events annually at  
          the multipurpose venue, as specified; or that the City or the  
          Port has not implemented the maritime program for Pier 30-32 for  
          its intended purpose; and, 

          (2) That the Port, or the City, has not taken effective action  
          to achieve the objectives specified in (1) above. 

          4. Section 5 of the bill amends previous legislation regarding  
          Piers-30-32 and contains the Legislature's authorization of this  
          project as the trustee of the public trust. That authorization  
          is dependent upon the SLC making the findings described above.  

          5. Section 6 contains a finding and declaration that BCDC's  
          regulatory authority is preserved in its Bay Plan and in the  
          Special Area Plan that covers the area in which Piers 30-32 are  
          located. 

          6. Section 7 specifies that, in addition to the findings that  
                                                                      8







          the SLC would make pursuant to Section 5, that the SLC review of  
          the project is limited to confirming the BCDC actions pursuant  
          to Section 6. This section does not confer public trust  
          consistency determination to the SLC because, as drafted, that  
          determination would be made by the Legislature. 

          7. The bill contains numerous amendments negotiated between BCDC  
          and the sponsors related to parking, conditions on retail, and a  
          public benefits package that would be developed separately and  
          through a public process. 

          8. The bill contains numerous findings and declarations in  
          Section 3 that contain the legislative history and its prior  
          actions with these two piers, the planning processes that have  
          occurred by the Port, by San Francisco, and by BCDC, among other  
          items. 

          9. The bill also contains numerous findings and declarations in  
          Section 4 specific to the history, current condition, and  
          estimated expense of preserving Piers 30-32. 

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT 
          The author, the City of San Francisco, the Port, and other key  
          supporters of this bill believe that the proposal from the  
          Golden State Warriors for a multi-purpose venue at Piers 30-32  
          with associated commercial development across the Embarcadero at  
          Seawall Lot 330 represents the best opportunity for revitalizing  
          the piers and maximizing public use and enjoyment of the site.  
          The estimate is that this site could host 43 basketball games a  
          year plus 160 or so other events including concerts,  
          conventions, and the like. 

          The Golden State Warriors proposal was made in May, 2012, and  
          negotiations between all the affected parties began in the fall  
          of 2012. 

          These two piers occupy 13 acres at one of the most desirable  
          locations in San Francisco. Moreover, there is no dispute that  
          these two piers are in disrepair. Currently, they are used a  
          parking lot. The estimate to repair the substructure to make the  
          piers useable for the proposed project is $68 million which the  
          Port cannot afford. That cost would be paid by the major tenant,  
          the Golden State Warriors, in part through revenues generated by  
          the components of the project that would occur on Seawall Lot  
          330. The useful life of the piers is estimated at 10 years. The  
          arena itself would be privately financed. 

                                                                      9







          Supporters point out that this project, including the arena,  
          unlike other recent stadium proposals that have been before the  
          Legislature, does not short-circuit environmental review of CEQA  
          or the regulatory approval processes by any affected agency  
          pursuant to existing law. Approvals would be required by the  
          Port, the Board of Supervisors, the State Lands Commission,  
          BCDC, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control  
          Board, among others. 

          The heart of the request of the supporters is that the  
          Legislature determine at this admittedly early stage of project  
          development that the project is consistent with the public trust  
          doctrine. The supporters believe such a determination is  
          essential to the confidence of the investors and the public  
          agencies involved in the project that the project could  
          ultimately be approved. 

          The sponsors have been engaged in active negotiations with BCDC  
          and the SLC for months, and they strongly believe that all  
          remaining details and regulatory approvals can be successfully  
          completed, even in light of the recent decision of BCDC to  
          oppose the project unless the author agrees to make the bill  
          into a two-year bill. Part of the reason for the optimism is  
          that the bill now reflects agreements between BCDC and the SLC  
          on several key points. 

          The supporters contend that this project is directly analogous  
          to other waterfront projects in California such as the Long  
          Beach Municipal Auditorium, Long Beach Convention Center, AT&T  
          Park in San Francisco, and the San Diego Convention Center. 

          Many other supporters from the San Francisco business and labor  
          community point to the non-public trust economic benefits of the  
          project including an estimated 5000 construction jobs and 3000  
          direct and ongoing jobs. The annual economic output of the  
          project provided by supporters is $500 million across the entire  
          Bay region. 

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          In addition to the opposition (unless amended) from BCDC, other  
          opposition to the bill falls into three general categories: (1)  
          affected governments and businesses from the East Bay concerned  
          about regional loss including economic losses, (2) environmental  
          organizations and some maritime and fishing associations who do  
          not believe the project is consistent with the Public Trust  
          doctrine, and (3) those who fundamentally disagree that the  
          project is appropriate for the waterfront. 
                                                                      10








          A joint opposition letter from the Mayors of several East Bay  
          Cities (Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, and San Leandro) argues  
          that this bill diminishes the authority of both the State Lands  
          Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission  
          in the project approval process. The letter states that  
          "removing from BCDC or the State Lands Commission any real role  
                                     in scrutinizing a massive commercial development on the Bay  
          would run directly contrary to the very purposes of these two  
          bodies, each of which has decades of experience balancing the  
          sometimes competing interests of developing and preserving the  
          waters, tidelands and submerged lands under their  
          jurisdictions." 

          The San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, a group formed in  
          reaction to this development proposal, argues the position of  
          BCDC demonstrates that this bill is premature. It also argues  
          that the bill  enables an entertainment complex to be built over  
          San Francisco Bay waters, a resource that is jointly shared by  
          nine counties, dozens of cities, millions of citizens, and  
          enjoyed by millions of visitors.  

          San Francisco Baykeeper argues that the bill circumvents BCDC  
          and SLC authority and that the merits of the project should be  
          assessed under normal procedures. It notes that the failure of  
          the bill would not constitute a denial of the project. 

          Save the Bay argues that the construction on the pier and the  
          project would have significant effects to the Bay's water  
          quality. It would support uses that would require less repairs,  
          including consideration of open space or parks. 

          The board of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission  
          (BCDC) voted to request that the author convert AB 1273 into a  
          two-year bill. The BCDC resolution states that the author's  
          failure to do so would mean BCDC would outright oppose the bill.  


          A recent staff report from BCDC seriously questioned whether the  
          proposed project is trust consistent. To quote from the  
          document, "The proposed arena is not a traditional public trust  
          use and is proposed on piers that are subject to the public  
          trust, and for this reason BCDC staff believes that the enclosed  
          arena use is not, at its heart, trust consistent. However the  
          State Legislature, subject to judicial review, is the final  
          arbiter of the public trust in California."

                                                                      11







          BCDC staff  have noted that some progress has been made in  
          resolving open issues, and a process to resolve some of the  
          remaining open issues is also in place. Project design,  
          including its size, height, and bulk, are all essential to  
          regulatory approvals, and those inter-related issues are still  
          in flux so there are no specific outcomes on that particular  
          open issue. The development of the off-site public benefits  
          package is deferred by mutual agreement of the parties and will  
          be established through a public process. Those are the two most  
          significant unresolved open issues. 

          An array of other issues have been noted by opponents from San  
          Francisco itself. These include traffic, walling off the  
          waterfront in violation of local values, standards, and  
          requirements, a lack of parking for the estimated 2 million or  
          so annual patrons of the proposed facility, and massive traffic  
          jams when major events at the new arena would conflict with  
          massive crowds at AT&T Park or other major downtown events.  
          Others have raised the question of whether a deadline should be  
          established for the project to be built. Still others have  
          raised the question of whether the major tenant should be  
          required to pay for all or part of the off-site public benefits  
          package or offer some sort of compensation to Oakland to make up  
          for the expected losses at the Oracle Arena there. 

          COMMENTS
          There are three obvious possible outcomes to the Committee's  
          deliberations on this bill. The bill could pass, fail, or be  
          held as two-year bill. 

          Staff is outlining a possible fourth outcome which, at this  
          stage, is conceptual only. It is offered for the Committee's  
          consideration as an example of an alternative approach. If the  
          Committee wants to choose this path, staff would work with  
          Legislative Counsel to craft the language. 

          This possible outcome is based on the following assumptions: 

          1. The project is not yet ready for a determination that it is  
          consistent with the Public Trust. It is hard to make such a  
          determination when the design details are not yet finalized. 

          2. It is also too early to say that the project will never be  
          consistent with the Public Trust. In fact, it is conceivable  
          that the project could be consistent with the Public Trust when  
          the design is finalized, all the regulatory approvals are in  
          place, the CEQA process has been completed, and the findings by  
                                                                      12







          designated agencies pursuant to this bill (including the new  
          provisions mentioned below) have been made. 

          3. The Legislature, at a future date, could make the Public  
          Trust determination one way or the other, or alternatively, the  
          Legislature could assign that task to the State Lands  
          Commission, a quasi-legislative commission, which is  
          well-regarded and has the professional skill-sets and  
          capabilities to make that decision. As mentioned earlier, the  
          Legislature has delegated exclusive authority over ungranted  
          public trust lands to the SLC as well as exclusive oversight  
          jurisdiction on lands granted to local grantees  such as, in  
          this case, the Port of San Francisco. Additionally, all of the  
          Commission's decisions are made in a properly noticed public  
          meeting. 

          4. If the decision is to assign the public trust consistency  
          question to the SLC, a separate determination should be made by  
          the SLC that the project, as entitled by the various agencies,  
          is in the best interest of the state, including consideration of  
          impacts to public trust resources and local and regional  
          economic impacts. 

          As a side comment about this fourth point, the Committee  
          probably knows that "the best interest of the state" finding is  
          presently a part of the SLC process for considering both new  
          offshore oil and gas production leases and land exchanges among  
          various grantees of public trust lands. In other words, it is a  
          known standard to the SLC. 

          Incorporating that factor into the bill would essentially ask  
          the three members of the SLC (Department of Finance, Controller,  
          and Lieutenant Governor) not only to make the final public trust  
          determination (subject to possible legislative review), but also  
          to determine that even if there is public trust consistency,  
          that the project is also in in the best interests of the state  
          as a whole. 

          5. There are several practical effects of this approach that  
          should be spelled out: 

               A.  This amendment would send this project back to the Bay  
               Area where it would either eventually receive its various  
               approvals or it would not. The supporters of the project  
               are confident that they will prevail in this process. The  
               opposition is convinced that it will defeat the project  
               using the same process. 
                                                                      13








               B. This approach should be adequate to show the investors  
               and the sponsors that a very judicious and responsible  
               process has been established by the Legislature to fairly  
               consider the public trust implications of the project  
               without prejudicing or interfering in the consideration of  
               the project by the reviewing regulatory agencies. 

               C. This approach would not require a two-year bill, but the  
               final public trust determination would not be made until  
               and unless the SLC reviews the project as part of its  
               consideration of the findings it has to make pursuant to  
               Section 5 of the bill and BCDC has issued a permit.  The  
               SLC would then make the final public trust determination,  
               including finding that the project is in the best interest  
               of the state. 

          6. This approach would require several conforming amendments to  
          the bill which would be developed over the next several days. 


          SUPPORT
          City and County of San Francisco (Sponsor)
          A. Philip Randolph Institute San Francisco
          A. Philip Randolph Institute Western Region
          Asbestos, Lead and Mold Laborers Local Union 67
          Bay Area Council
          Boys and Girls Club of San Francisco
          Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 3
          Brightline Defense Project
          Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco  
          CAL Insurance and Associates, Inc.
          California Labor Federation
          California Sate Pipe Trades Council 
          California State Association of Electrical Workers 
          California State Council of Laborers
          Charity Cultural Services Center
          Golden State Warriors
          Hotel Council of San Francisco
          International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 6
          Laborers' International Union of North American Local Union No.  
          261
          Mission Hiring Hall
          Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
          San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
          San Francisco Citizens Initiative for Technology and Innovation
          San Francisco Deputy Sherriff's Foundation
                                                                      14







          San Francisco Fire Department 
          San Francisco Travel Association
          Sign Display & Allied Crafts Local Union No. 510
          Silicon Valley Leadership Group
          Sprinkler Fitters and Apprentices Local 483
          State Building and Construction Trades Council 
          Sustainable Futures
          United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing  
          and Pipe Fitting Industry
          United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of American Local  
          Union No. 22
          Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
          Young Community Developers, Inc. 
          Many Individuals 


          OPPOSITION
          Airport Area Business Association
          Alameda County Board of Supervisors
          City of Oakland
          Mayor of Berkeley
          Mayor of Oakland
          Mayor of Richmond
          Mayor of San Leandro
          Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce
          Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 
          Safe Storage 
          San Francisco Baykeeper
          San Francisco Tomorrow
          San Francisco Waterfront Alliance
          Save Oakland Sports
          Save The Bay
          Shred Works
          The Art Sign Company
          The Sierra Club California
          The Ultimate Sports Guide 
          Many Individuals

           








                                                                      15